The Supreme Court has reprimanded lawyer Emmanuel Aboagye for unprofessional behavior after he represented both a plaintiff and a defendant in a land conflict in Ejisu, situated in the Ashanti Region.
This ruling was announced in the case of Madam Akosua Adade against Okesseku Mintah (TLP-SC-2026-17), with Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi emphasizing the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest in legal work.
As reported by thelawplatform.com on June 22, 2026, the court determined that Aboagye had initially represented the plaintiff in previous actions at the Circuit Court, where a ruling was made and steps were taken to enforce it concerning the contested property.
Subsequently, he changed his stance and began representing the defendant in the identical case.
The Supreme Court reportedly pointed out that the attorney not only altered his representation but also initiated actions against his former client regarding the same property, which included enforcement and contempt proceedings.
Justice Kulendi, sharing his agreement, clarified that the attorney who had executed the ruling for the plaintiff later served the opposing side in related matters.
“Based on my review of the records, this case is a derivative of Suit No.: 58/03 titled Madam Akosua Addai versus Okesseku Minta Afari, which was submitted to the Circuit Court, resulting in a ruling on August 12, 2013, declaring the Plaintiff/Respondent as the rightful owner of Plot 35 Block E, Ejisu. Additionally, the records indicate that the Counsel who secured the judgment in Suit No.: 58/03 for the Plaintiff is the same attorney now working for the defendant/Appellant in this appeal,” the report detailed.
The court also reportedly noted that the same attorney had submitted numerous legal documents, such as motions for writs of possession and applications for contempt, regarding the same case.
“Specifically, pages 43, 45, 46, 47, and 49 of the Record of Appeal indicate that the counsel filed various motions, including a request for a writ of possession and a petition for the Defendant’s incarceration for contempt,” the court observed.
Justice Kulendi highlighted that such actions clearly violated legal ethics and standards of professionalism.
“The legal profession requires a foundation of trustworthiness, honesty, loyalty, confidentiality, and the steadfast obligation of attorneys to maintain the dignity, sanctity, and integrity of judicial processes and the courts,” he remarked.
He went on to state that rules regarding conflicts of interest are in place to safeguard the justice system and avert misuse of confidential information.
“The ban on conflicts of interest is a well-established principle in the legal field, developed over many years to maintain the integrity of legal representation and to ensure that private information is never used against a former client,” he asserted.
The Supreme Court also warned lawyers to refrain from such actions, stating that it compromises the trustworthiness of the legal profession.
Regarding the same issue or a significantly similar one, one attorney has represented the Plaintiff in Case No.: 58/03 and has also acted for the Defendant in this appeal. We disapprove of this behavior and warn lawyers and legal professionals against engaging in such actions and practices. This behavior undermines the ethical principles established for practitioners, the court expressed.
The court also mentioned that violating professional responsibilities can have serious repercussions, which may include disciplinary measures and the potential removal of an attorney from a case.
“The fallout from breaching this professional duty by attorneys and law firms might not only lead to disciplinary action against such behavior but could also result in the annulment of documents submitted, or, at the very least, the removal of that attorney’s name from the case as counsel,” it stated.
It emphasized that the judiciary must take steps to safeguard the integrity of legal processes when such violations arise.
“We cannot stress enough that the legal profession remains one of high regard because society anticipates that lawyers will uphold standards that exceed those typically expected of business participants,” the court remarked.
The Supreme Court called on legal professionals to sustain ethical standards to prevent tarnishing the reputation of the profession.
